Global Plastics Treaty Negotiators Fail to Reach Agreement
After nearly a decade of preparation, negotiations for a UN treaty to curb extensive plastic pollution ended without a resolution. Representatives from over 170 countries convened in Busan, South Korea, for a week of discussions. Though originally intended as the culmination of the negotiations, the talks will now continue into next year after failing to overcome key disagreements.
teaser blast
A major point of contention remains the potential for a cap on global plastic production. A coalition of over 100 countries, including Mexico, Panama, Rwanda, and the European Union, advocate for this measure, highlighting the urgent need to reduce the production of new plastic. Conversely, oil-producing nations such as Saudi Arabia and Russia have consistently opposed production limits, instead urging the treaty to focus on improving waste management practices.
“Hesitation Means Death”
“We have not achieved what we came for,” declared Juan Carlos Monterrey Gómez of the Panama delegation in an emotionally charged speech during the concluding session, met with prolonged applause from supporters.
“Hesitation means death, action means survival.” He underscored their determination, saying they would not relent and remain committed to fighting for a binding agreement. These sentiments were echoed throughout the week as concerns about the escalating global plastic crisis and the urgency for action spurred impassioned pleas for effective change.
Several hours earlier At
Gómez had described plastic as a “weapon of mass destruction” for his country, stating that “everything we love is at stake. This is not a drill, this is a fight for survival”, highlighting the profound impact plastic pollution has on vulnerable communities worldwide.
{{{
Cutting to the Core Issuesciaż
The UN estimates that globally, around 400 million tons of plastic waste are generated each year, a figure poised to rise continually without immediate, decisive action. Data from recent years demonstrates a steady harmful increase of plastic waste worldwide, prompting declarations of urgency from both experts and activist groups.
To give context for readers in Germany, the Federal Environment Agency reports that nearly six million tons of plastic waste are generated annually within the country.
Walking a delicate balance between the demands of economic development and the urgent need to protect the environment has proven to be challenging for world leaders at
Stefan Sauer/dpa-Zentralbild/dpa
Global plastic pollution has increased sharply.
the negotiation table. Non-governmental organizations like WWF expressed deep concern, stating, “We have witnessed continued resistance from a vocal minority of states who are clearly negotiating in bad faith and are not seeking a meaningful agreement.”
A Glimmer of Hope for the Fight Against Plastic Pollution
It is not all walk away from this week, as some environmental groups have cautiously welcomed the decision to extend negotiations rather than agreeing to a smaller treaty that lacked ambition and effectiveness. “An effective agreement must contain binding global targets and measures to reduce plastic production,” stressed Moritz Jäger-Roschko, a Greenpeace expert.
The organization sees the pause as a chance to strengthen the proposed treaty and formulate a lasting solution to curb plastic production.
That view is not wholly shared.
The stakes remain incredibly high.
Assistant Secretary-general Patricia Espinosa announced that “Almost 200 UN states agreed in March 2022 to make a joint decision to curb plastic by the end of 2024. In total, the agreement was prepared for almost ten years.”
countries to ensure a legally binding treaty will be concluded in the upcoming year.
The next stage of the negotiation process is awaited with bated breath.
Why did negotiations for the UN Plastics Treaty stall, and what are the main points of disagreement amongst negotiating countries?
## Interview: Global Plastics Treaty Negotiations Stall
**Host:** Joining us today is Dr. Anya Sharma, an environmental policy expert from the University of Oxford, to discuss the recent disappointing outcome of the UN Plastics Treaty negotiations. Dr. Sharma, welcome to the show.
**Dr. Sharma:** Thank you for having me.
**Host:** For our viewers who may not be familiar, can you briefly explain what this treaty was aiming to achieve?
**Dr. Sharma:** The treaty aimed to create a global agreement to address the devastating issue of plastic pollution. It was hoped that this agreement would set concrete targets for reducing plastic production and consumption, improve waste management infrastructure globally, and hold nations accountable for their plastic footprint.
**Host:** Sadly, as we know, the negotiations have concluded without a finalized agreement. What went wrong?
**Dr. Sharma:** The talks stalled primarily due to disagreements over crucial issues like capping global plastic production. A coalition of nations led by countries like Panama and members of the EU advocate for stricter production limits to curb the plastic crisis at its source. Unfortunately, oil-producing nations like Saudi Arabia and Russia, who have a vested interest in maintaining high production levels, strongly oppose such measures.
**Host:** The language used by some delegates, like Panama’s representative Juan Carlos Monterrey Gómez, was exceptionally strong. He called plastic a “weapon of mass destruction.” What does this tell us about the urgency of the situation?
**Dr. Sharma:** I think Mr. Gómez’ words reflect the desperation felt by many nations, particularly those on the frontlines of the plastic crisis. Plastic pollution is not just an environmental issue; it directly affects livelihoods, food security, and public health, especially in vulnerable communities. The lack of progress at these negotiations is a serious setback in the fight against this global threat.
**Host:** What are the next steps? Is there still hope for this treaty?
**Dr. Sharma:** While it’s disappointing that a deal wasn’t reached this time, negotiations will continue into next year. There is still hope, but it depends on whether all nations are willing to compromise and prioritize the urgent need for collective action over national interests.
**Host:** Dr. Sharma, thank you for sharing your insights. This is certainly a story we will continue to follow closely.
**Dr. Sharma:** Thank you for having me.
